A Rare Entity-Percutaneous Lead Extraction in a Very Late Onset Pacemaker Endocarditis: Case Report and Review of Literature.

The number of infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased as the number of devices implanted around the world has grown exponentially in recent years. CIED complications can sometimes be difficult to diagnose and manage, as in the case of lead-related infective endocarditis. We present the case of a 48-year-old male diagnosed with Staphylococcus aureus device-related infective endocarditis, 12 years after the implant of a single chamber pacemaker. A recent history of the patient includes two urinary catheterizations due to obstructive uropathy in the context of a prostatic adenoma, 2 months previously, both without antibiotic prophylaxis; no other possible entry sites were found and no history of other invasive procedures. After initiation of antibiotic therapy according to antibiotic susceptibility testing, we decided to remove the right ventricular passive fixation lead along with the vegetation and pacemaker generator; because of severe lead adhesions in the costoclavicular region, and especially in the right ventricle, we needed mechanical sheaths to remove the abundant fibrous tissue that encompassed the lead. After a difficult, but successful, lead extraction along with a large vegetation and 6 weeks' antibiotic therapy, the clinical and biological evolution was favorable, without reappearance of symptoms. While very late lead endocarditis is a rarity, late lead-related infective endocarditis (more than 12 months elapsed since implant) is not an exception; this is why we find that endocarditis prophylaxis should be reconsidered in certain patient categories, our patient being proof that procedures with neglectable endocarditis risk according to the guidelines can lead to bacterial endocarditis.

Implantation of a Dual-Chamber Automatic Cardioverter Defibrillator in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava: Case Report and Brief Literature Review.

Persistence of the left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a congenital anomaly reported in 0.3-0.5% of patients. Due to the multiple and complex anatomical variations, transvenous lead placement can become challenging. We report the case of a 47-year-old patient diagnosed with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF-27%), who was referred to our clinic for implantation of a dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. During the procedure we encountered an abnormal guidewire trajectory and after venographic examination we established the diagnosis of persistent left superior vena cava. After difficult implantation of a 7F defibrillation lead through the coronary sinus, we managed to place the atrial lead through a narrow brachiocephalic vein into the right atrial appendage. In this paper, we aim to illustrate the medical and technical implications of implanting a cardioverter defibrillator in patients with PLSVC, highlighting the benefit of identifying and utilizing both the innominate vein, and the left superior vena cava and coronary sinus for placement of multiple leads, which would otherwise have been impossible.